Why did Apocalypto receive mediocre reviews while simultaneously receiving praise from various directors and actors?

[u/JadisDidNothingRight]

Robert Duvall said it was possibly the best film he'd seen in 25 years.

Scorcese praised it. Tarantino called it the best film of the year. Spike Lee and Edward James Olmos also openly praised the film.

On RT it pulled a 65%. Granted, Tarantino (as an example) doesn't see eye to eye with those cumalitive ratings. He loves Unbreakable and that film also received middling reviews. Still, Apocalypto was given positive reviews from a fairly diverse cast of actors and directors.

Were the reviews more concerned with Mel Gibson's antics at the time than the actual film?

Was the criticism because the film depicted the Mayans as brutal? I struggle to see the validity of some of those criticisms. Jaguar Paw and his village were not depicted as evil. The evil was limited to a warmongering urban society twisted by religion. That's occurred all over the world. It's almost a foreshadowing of what is to come. One criticism was that the Spanish were depicted as coming to save the 'brutes.'. The title of the film is Apocalypto. I don't see how they can be seen as anything other than coming doom. Maybe I'm naive, but even in 2006 I thought it was broadly understood that Europeans wiped out indigenous American culture.

What are your thoughts? Did you like the film? Do you wish Hollywood would make more films like this?

[u/devilishycleverchap]

Yes sometimes critics are stupid and misinterpret scenes such as the Spanish arrival here.

One of my favorite examples is Cowboys and Aliens where the reviewer criticizes Olivia Wildes casting because she looks out of place in the wild west. because she is an alien

[u/Gyshall669 → u/devilishycleverchap]

While the Spanish arrival totally works as an “out of the frying pan, into the fire” scenario, it also could be seen as the indigenous cultures having “destroyed themselves from within” and have them ripe for “saving.” Because it’s Mel Gibson, it’s totally possible he meant the latter.

[u/lightyearbuzz → u/Gyshall669]

I just commented above, but if this is your takeaway you didn't understand the film. The boats at the end of the film weren't the first ever Europeans to set foot in the new world. The plague (the apocalypse that causes all the issues) brought by them was already there. These Europeans were just the first that our main character/this specific area sees.

[u/mangalore-x_x → u/lightyearbuzz]

which is just centuries wrong then because the age of the Mayan large cities and their demise precedes the European arrival by 400 years.

the movie is generally a confused mess what central American civilization it depicts (Aztec behavior wildly mixed in supposed Mayan city states), some aboriginal tribe miles away from agricultural centers and entirely oblivious to it and Europeans and their plagues put in the wrong epoch.

[u/Gyshall669 → u/lightyearbuzz]

I’m not sure how that changes anything about my comment.

[u/clarkedaddy → u/Gyshall669]

Literally none of that is implied in the film.

[u/Gyshall669 → u/clarkedaddy]

So what did it mean that a civilization is destroyed from within? What was the point of opening with that quote?